Abstract
This study aimed to explore to what extent adults perceive deviations from the norm
of a balanced profile with normal occlusion as reducing satisfaction with facial appearance
and having a psychosocial impact. This cross-sectional study included 225 Caucasian
subjects (64% women) aged 18–42 years. Their facial profiles were analyzed photogrammetrically
and they were classified into three categories: within, below, or above the standard
range for the Croatian population with a normal occlusion. Psychosocial issues were
assessed by self-reported satisfaction with facial appearance and domains from the
Orthognathic Quality of Life Questionnaire: social aspects of dentofacial aesthetics
(SA), facial aesthetics concern (FA), and awareness of dentofacial aesthetics (AW).
Men with a concave profile were less satisfied with their faces than those with a
flat or convex profile (P< 0.05). A reduced upper lip height in men resulted in a lower level of satisfaction
and increased FA score, when compared to men with a normal or increased upper lip
height (P< 0.05). In women, a reduced middle third of the face increased AW (P = 0.045). Deviations from a well-balanced facial profile, as well as the morphology
of the nose and lip, do not increase psychosocial issues to a great extent. The range
of acceptable facial characteristics is evidently much broader than the norms.
Key words
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Facial keys to orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning—part II.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103: 299-312
- Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics.Fourth edition. Elsevier, Oxford2005: 94-109
- Oral health quality of life in a Nigerian university undergraduate population.J West Afr Coll Surg. 2014; 4: 54-74
- Evaluation of the effects of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment on self-esteem in an adolescent population.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138: 160-166https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.040
- Clinical anthropometry and canons of the face in historical perspective.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 106: 1090-1096
- An evaluation of the soft tissue facial profile in the North American black woman.Am J Orthod. 1979; 76: 84-95https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(79)90302-6
- Craniofacial structure of Japanese and European American adults with normal occlusions and well balanced faces.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 110: 431-438
- Facial profile preferences among various layers of Turkish population.Angle Orthod. 2004; 74: 640-647https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0640:FPPAVL>2.0.CO;2
- Analysis of the soft tissue facial profile by means of angular measurements.Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30: 135-140
- Selected aspects of the art and science of facial esthetics.Semin Orthod. 1995; 1: 105-126
- Skeletofacial morphology of attractive and nonattractive faces.Angle Orthod. 2006; 76: 204-210https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0204:SMOAAN]2.0.CO;2
- Facial diversity and infants preferences for attractive faces.Develop Psychol. 1991; 27: 79-84
- What is average and what is not average about attractive faces.Psychol Sci. 1994; 5: 214-220
- Proportions in the upper lip lower lip chin area of the lower face as determined by photogrammetric method.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2010; 38: 90-95https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2009.03.013
- New parameters for roentgen cephalometric analysis Zagreb 82.Acta Stomatol Croat. 2004; 38: 163-172
- Development of a condition-specific quality of life measure for patients with dentofacial deformity II. Validity and responsiveness testing.Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002; 30: 81-90
- Neoclassical canons of facial beauty: do we see the deviations?.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 741-747https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2017.01.029
- Perception of facial attractiveness by patients, peers, and professionals.Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1995; 10: 127-135
- Perceptions of facial appearance by orthodontists and the general public.J Clin Orthod. 1997; 31: 164-168
- A comparison of the perception of facial profile by the general public and three groups of clinicians.Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1999; 14: 291-295
- Profile changes in patients treated with and without extractions: assessments by lay people.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 112: 639-644
- Dimensions of facial physical attractiveness: the intersection of biology and culture.in: Rhodes G. Zebrowitz L.A. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary, cognitive and social perspective. Ablex, Westport2002: 1937238
- What about men? Social comparison and the effects of media images on body and self-esteem.Psychol Men Masc. 2007; 8: 161-172
- Preferences of AP position of the straight Caucasian facial profile.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2013; 8: 180-187https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2013.01.014
- Perceptions of a balanced facial profile.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 104: 180-187https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81008-X
- Significance of young females different vertical facial types on the esthetic evaluation of facial profiles.J Clin Rehab Tissue Eng Res. 2014; 18: 4611-4617
- Facial attractiveness: an orthodontic prospective.Sch J Dent Sci. 2015; 2: 119-121
- What is beautiful is good.J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972; 24: 285-290
- Influence of lips on the perception of malocclusion.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130: 152-156https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.036
- The perception of facial aesthetics in a young Spanish population.Eur J Orthod. 2011; 34: 335-339https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr014
- Soft tissue profile in Anatolian Turkish adults: part II. Comparison of different soft tissue analyses in the evaluation of beauty.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121: 65-72
- Social psychological face perception: why appearance matters.Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2008; 2: 1497https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 05, 2017
Footnotes
☆Preliminary data were reported as an oral presentation at the Third Congress of the Macedonian Orthodontic Society in Ohrid, Macedonia, 2016.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 International Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
